FMC Corp. v. H & K Mach., Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 May 1990
• Docket Number: No. 89-1683,89-1683
• Citation: 904 F.2d 46
• Parties: Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order. FMC CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H & K MACHINE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

Page 46

904 F.2d 46

15 U.S.P.Q.2d 1830

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.

FMC CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H & K MACHINE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 89-1683.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 18, 1990.

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge, COWEN, Senior Circuit Judge, and ARTHUR L. ALARCON, Circuit Judge. ^*

PER CURIAM.

DECISION

The order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denying FMC Corporation's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, 718 F.Supp. 1403 (1989), is affirmed.

OPINION

The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial either because of the manner in which it instructed the jury or because the jury's verdict of non-infringement was contrary to the clear weight of the evidence. No federal court of appeals requires that district courts submit written instructions to the jury; whether a district judge chooses to do so in a particular case is a matter committed to his or her discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Quilty, 541 F.2d 172, 177 (7th Cir.1976); United States v. Conley, 503 F.2d 520, 522 (8th Cir.1974); Oertle v. United States, 370 F.2d 719, 729 & n. 16 (10th Cir.1966); McDaniel v. United States, 343 F.2d 785, 789 (5th Cir.1965). No doubt, written instructions are helpful, especially in complicated cases. But FMC has not persuaded us that Judge Gordon abused his discretion in this case by orally instructing the jury and agreeing later to submit written instructions to it only if the parties stipulated to a correct version.

This was not a complicated case. Infringement and damages were the only issues, both the technology and claim language involved were straightforward, and the trial lasted only one week. The parties agree that the oral instructions were legally correct and the jury did not ask the judge to repeat or clarify any of the instructions, despite being offered the opportunity to do so. Nor did the jury ask for written instructions. In short, all indications are that the jury heard and understood the instructions. It appears that FMC's primary reason for thinking otherwise is the unfavorable outcome. To the extent the charge was unduly long or complicated,...